After opposition walked out over their demands for discussion on Manipur Violence, the Rajya Sabha passed the contentious Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 today. It aims to amend certain provisions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to extend and exempt specific types of land from the Act’s applicability. The Bill was approved by Lok Sabha last week with voice vote.
In the Statement of Object and Reasons Of Bill, it states that it is necessary to broaden the horizon of the Act in order to achieve the objective of the country to increase the forest cover for creation of carbon sink of additional 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO equivalent by 2030.
It further states that before the 1996 Supreme Court judgement in T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India and others, the Forest (Conservation) Act only applied to notified forest lands, not revenue forest areas and non-forestry use in the revenue forest areas was allowed through government’s permissions.
After the judgment, the Act was applied to recorded forest areas, including those already used for non-forestry purposes. This caused confusion about the Act’s applicability to plantations on private and government non-forest lands. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the Act’s applicability to different types of lands, it stated.
The Bill amends the short title of the Act to be called the “Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980” and clarifies the scope of applicability of the Act upon various lands.
It extends the applicability of the Act to certain types of land. These include land notified as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or in government records after the 1980 Act came into effect.
Certain categories of lands are exempted from the purview of the Act which includes the following:
Key Challenges
Concerns are raised that the exemption of land from the purview of the Act near border areas for national security projects may adversely impact the forest cover and wildlife in the border area regions like Jammu & Kashmir and north-eastern states.
The Bill removes the mandatory central government approval for diversion of forests in certain cases. This means that decisions regarding the diversion of forest land would be taken by state governments and the UT administration only. According to PRS, giving a blanket exemption for all security related projects may not be appropriate given the impact it may have on forest cover and biodiversity.
Zoos are also exempted from taking prior approval under the Act, however the Apex Court in In re T.N Godaverman v. UOI disapproved of the building of zoos inside forest areas.
The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in March, 2023 and thereafter it was referred to a 31 member Joint Parliamentary Committee that has recently submitted its report. The Committee did not propose any changes to the Bill. However, six MPs from opposition have filed the dissent note. The objections were raised by them on exemption of forest land at border areas from the purview of the Act, that might turn detrimental to Biodiversity and forest coverage of border areas especially at Himalayan region. Concerns were also raised that it may lead to exploitation of forest land by using them for non-forest purposes.
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh raised an objection on sending the Bill to the select committee of Parliament. He said that the Bill should ideally be sent to the parliamentary standing committee on science, technology, environment and forest which is chaired by Ramesh.
“Forest-like areas”-ie., tracts of land that have the characteristics of forests, but have not been notified under the law or recorded as ‘Forest’ in any government records-would be exempted under the amendment,” wrote MP Jairam Ramesh after passing of the Bill today.
Also, forest lands diverted by the State before 1996 are completely exempted under the proposed amendment. Such blanket exemptions will threaten all such forests by diluting the category of ‘forest lands’ which were brought under the mandate of approval in the landmark 1996 T.N. Godavarman judgment of the Supreme Court, he added.
Another concern raised by the opposition parties is that it will enable private developers to cut down forests without getting the consent of forest-dwellers, which will consequently violate the provisions of the Forest Rights Act.
On changing the short title of the Act as “Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980,”objections were raised that it ignores the non-Hindi speaking population of the country.
The Supreme Court while acquitting a convict in a dowry death case emphasized the critical importance of ensuring that a dying declaration is trustworthy and reliable and inspires confidence when it is considered the sole basis for a criminal conviction...
In a rapidly growing business ecosystem safeguarding sensitive information is paramount For Indian businesses Non-Disclosure Agreements NDAs have become crucial legal tools to protect trade secrets proprietary information client details and more This article explores NDAs from an Indian legal...
In a recent case the Supreme Court reminded police officers of their duty to be vigilant before invoking provisions of stringent laws such as the SC-ST Prevention of Atrocities Act stating that officers must be satisfied that the provisions apply...
The Supreme Court today ruled that DBS Bank and its directors who were appointed after the amalgamation with Lakshmi Vilas Bank LVB and had their appointments approved by the Reserve Bank of India RBI cannot be held criminally liable for...
During the Suo Motu hearing of the RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder today the Supreme Court expressed its worries over the 'inhuman working hours' of resident doctors all over the country nbsp The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud...
The Supreme Court has held that if an Indian Entity rsquo s Establishment is operating in Oman and has a lsquo Permanent Establishment rsquo status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ldquo DTAA rdquo then the dividend income received by the...